Download PDF file - Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

Introduction 3executive. Third, the police areill-equipped and ill-trained tomeet the challenges posed byviolent insurgency(specifically), and ordinarycrimes and law and ordersituations (generally). Theirtraining needs are not given thepriority their job requires. 18YearTable 2:Complaints of Police inefficiency and highhandedness in Courts ofSessions, 2002-09 17HarassmentComplaint CategoryNon-registration ofFIRAll these factorscontribute to make the policean ineffective and inefficientorganisation. However, anotherimportant reason why the2005200720082009142441322425,97031,6485646947386106,668139,5276136567811,70614,979police are unable to function asIncreasean effective and efficient 2002since 52 times 139 times 8 timesorganisation, accountable orresponsive to the public needs,Source: Annual Reports of the Lahore High Courtis the missing democratic legal framework that is crucial for any public service institution in a democracy.The Police Act, 1861, which held the field for 54 years after independence and was repealed by the existingPolice Order, 2002, was criticised, among other things, for being a law born out of colonial needs. It was alsocriticised for incorporating the principle of duality of control over the police (paragraph 2 of section 4 of the Act). 19Under this principle, the police officers were subject to the general control of the District Magistrate in certain areasof their functions especially those relating to their interaction with the public. However, there was no guarantee thatcontrol or superintendence was exercised to make the police function in accordance with law.The 1861 Act was further criticised for the ill-defined and vague relationship between the District Magistrateand the Police and its impact on the latter’s autonomy. 20 The Act vested superintendence of the police in the provincialgovernments. At the district level, it put the police under the command of the District Superintendent of Police, butsubject to the “general control and direction” of the District Magistrate, a bureaucrat belonging to the DistrictManagement Group of Civil Services. But neither the word “superintendence” nor the phrase “general control anddirection” was defined in law. This enabled the government of the day to use the police to serve the partisan interestsof the regime in power, whenever required. 21However, at the same time, the magisterial controls were said to serve two important purposes namely: 22a. To provide an inexpensive and local police accountability mechanism; andHabeas Corpus2002 608 1003 19702003 8614 20301 55772004 13443 45943 5974b. To ensure availability of police for effective delivery of regulatory services by various governmentfunctionaries.The district magistrate provided a kind of barrier to the police excesses under the Police Act, 1861, whichwas removed by the Police Order, 2002, without providing an effective and efficient alternative. 23The offices of the District Magistrate and other executive magistrates were abolished through amendmentsin the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Amendments to the Police Act, 1861 in 2001 and later police reform underthe Police Order, 2002 accommodated the police views on duality of control. 24Under the Police Order, 2002 the superintendence of the police vested in the hands of the political executive,i.e. the provincial government, and the control of the District Magistrate over the police were supposed to beabolished to the advantage of the citizens. 25 However, the promulgation and implementation of the Police Order, 2002remained problematic right from the beginning.First, it was introduced as a federal legislation in the absence of democratically elected representative